On 6/5/18 9:58 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> On 6/5/18 3:20 AM, drug wrote:
>> 04.06.2018 21:08, Steven Schveighoffer пишет:
>>> On 6/4/18 1:51 PM, Joakim wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 4 June 2018 at 15:52:24 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>>> On 6/2/18 3:23 AM, Mike Parker wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the article, but was taken aback a bit by this quote: "for example, a PR to fix a bug in a specific piece of code mustn’t also edit the documentation of that function."
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> I think he was talking about _unrelated_ doc changes.
>>>
>>> Well, how unrelated? If, for instance, you are changing the docs to accommodate the new code, and notice a typo, I would be fine with fixing that, and have even ASKED for that. I guess I need a bigger clarification, as the way it reads is that we require people split their doc changes from their code changes, and that simply hasn't been the case.
>>>
>>
>> But what if your commit with this typo would be reverted? Then you lost your typo fix too.
> 
> Then you fix the typo again? Reverts don't happen enough to justify this concern.

To clarify a bit, complicated or controversial changes that are likely to be delayed or stalled, should be split from simple doc changes if it turns out it's not going to be pulled anytime soon. But normally, adding fixes for docs I would think is fine.

-Steve

05.06.2018 17:00, Steven Schveighoffer пишет:
> 
> To clarify a bit, complicated or controversial changes that are likely to be delayed or stalled, should be split from simple doc changes if it turns out it's not going to be pulled anytime soon. But normally, adding fixes for docs I would think is fine.
> 
> -Steve

Adding fixes for docs is fine for me too. I just don't like mixing unrelated changes in a commit. But nevertheless I did it. The world isn't ideal)